DOCUMENTARY FILE 1 — Ill-gotten gains: fifteen years of investigation — what next?
A procedure dating back to 2007
2007 — The first legal proceedings in France target the assets of several African leaders and their relatives.
1 December 2008 — Transparency International France, together with Sherpa, announces the filing of a complaint with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party, concerning the circumstances in which substantial assets in France attributed to the families and entourages of Denis Sassou-Nguesso, Omar Bongo Ondimba and Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo were acquired.
2010 — A judicial investigation is opened in France. It concerns, in particular, suspected misappropriation of foreign public funds, handling of stolen assets and money laundering.
Subsequent years — Investigations continue into property holdings, bank accounts, companies, vehicles and other assets held in France. The various strands of the case follow distinct judicial paths.
2021 — Gabon’s position in the proceedings already causes controversy. Transparency International France challenges its application to join the proceedings as a civil party.
4 August 2021 — France adopts, in its law on solidarity-based development, a mechanism intended to return to the populations concerned the proceeds from the sale of certain assets that have been definitively confiscated.
22 November 2022 — A circular sets out the arrangements for implementing the French restitution mechanism.
8 September 2026 — Lawyers acting for the Gabonese state submit their observations to the French courts.
September 2026 — The case returns to the forefront in Gabon and Congo-Brazzaville.
Why can the French courts investigate?
A case involving African public money is not necessarily beyond the reach of the French courts. If money derived from an offence committed abroad is used to buy a flat in Paris, acquire vehicles, establish a company or carry out financial transactions in France, money-laundering or handling offences may fall within the jurisdiction of the French courts. This does not make the French judge the general judge of Gabonese or Congolese public finances. The investigation concerns offences within French jurisdiction and assets within its territorial reach.
Why did NGOs open the way?
French proceedings concerning ‘ill-gotten gains’ owe much to civil-society organisations. Transparency International France and Sherpa played a decisive role in the first complaints. Their intervention raised a legal question: could an association bring proceedings before French courts in a case whose primary victims were states and their populations? The role of NGOs also explains a political feature of these cases: some proceedings did not originate in the wishes of the African states concerned.
Seizure, confiscation and restitution: three different stages
Seizure temporarily freezes an asset during proceedings. Confiscation occurs when a judicial decision permanently removes the asset from the convicted person, subject to the applicable avenues of appeal. Restitution concerns what then happens to the asset or to the money raised by its sale.
To whom should the money be returned?
In 2021 France introduced a mechanism allowing proceeds from certain definitively confiscated ‘ill-gotten gains’ to be allocated to co-operation and development measures carried out as closely as possible to the populations concerned. Where a state joins proceedings as a civil party and a French judge directly recognises its loss, other rules may nevertheless apply.
The Equatorial Guinea precedent
The case of Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue is one of the most advanced precedents. The Vice-President of Equatorial Guinea received a conviction in France that became final in 2021. The confiscated assets included movable property and a mansion on Avenue Foch in Paris. In 2026 France began the procedure for selling the property.
Can African states prosecute their own leaders?
The question is not measured by the number of courthouses or judges. It arises when an investigation reaches those in power. Can a prosecutor open proceedings concerning the assets of a sitting president? Can a judge investigate a presidential family without fearing for his or her career? Can tax, customs and finance administrations transmit their information?
Does a foreign judge solve the problem?
No. A foreign judge can investigate assets located within that judge’s country, try people falling within that jurisdiction, seize assets and, eventually, confiscate some of them. But a foreign judge cannot make another country’s prosecution service independent, strengthen its court of auditors or protect its judges over the long term from political pressure.
Further questions
The first concerns justice: what remains of justice in a country when the state goes looking for it elsewhere?
A second follows immediately: is returning the money enough if nothing changes in the institutions that allowed it to leave?
A third concerns the countries in which the assets were placed: how much wealth of questionable origin could never have been accumulated if banks, intermediaries, estate agents and supervisory authorities had asked the right questions earlier?
The ‘ill-gotten gains’ issue therefore tells not only the story of African states that sometimes fail to scrutinise their rulers. It also tells the story of countries in which that money found bank accounts, companies, properties and many doors opened to receive it.